Friday, 22 August 2014

As a change of career beckons for our local MP Mark Simmonds
– he will not be contesting Boston and Skegness at next year’s general election
because the parliamentary expenses system is not enough for him to enjoy family
life – still no-one yet seems prepared to come forward to offer him words of
comfort.

The website Conservativehome
– which somewhat obviously defines itself as “the home of Conservatism” – last week
carried a comment by their pundit Iain Dale, presenter of LBC Drive, managing director
of Biteback Publications, a columnist and broadcaster and a former Conservative
Parliamentary candidate – and clearly not a man to mince his words.

“I’ve never met Mark Simmonds,” he declared, “but, honestly,
what
a moron.

“Does he seriously think that anyone will have any sympathy
for his apparent plight of not being able to survive on £120,000 a year? I ask
you. I have some sympathy with his complaint that a parliamentary lifestyle
doesn't really mix with a family life.

“But my sympathy is tempered by the fact
that he must surely have known this before he applied to be a candidate.

“And if he didn’t, he’s even more of a moron than he appears
to be.

“Does Simmonds realise how he comes across to a family of four who exist
on £30,000 a year?

“And we wonder why people think politicians are out of touch”

***

In the Mail on Sunday,columnist Annie McElvoy is even more
unforgiving.

Beneath the headline “£90,000 isn't enough for a Tory - but
it's a
huge bonus for UKIP ,” she writes:

“Not only has Mark Simmonds, a Foreign Office minister,
resigned on the threadbare grounds that a £89,435 ministerial salary and
allowances strained the family finances, but Mr Simmonds – an erstwhile backer
of the Prime Minister – wants to throw in the towel in his Boston seat.

“Ordinarily, an undistinguished parliamentarian
quitting in a seat with a 12,000 Tory majority would cause few tears among
election planners.

“But Boston, where feelings about immigration
from Eastern Europe run particularly high, is a bull’s-eye target at the election next
May for UKIP .

“The Faragistes took more than 50 per cent of the vote there
in the European elections; their highest total.

“Well-paid MPs with property portfolios moaning about how
tough Westminster is sounds like a gift to the populist Mr Farage.

“The seat is not as loyally Tory as it looks; it was a
hard-fought Labour marginal in 2001 and 1997.

“The only cheer for Dave is that the Lincolnshire coast
isn't plain sailing for Nigel Farage either. I'm told his best ‘frenemy’ Neil Hamilton, whose entanglement
with Mohammed Al Fayed ended up briefly losing the Tories the safe seat of
Tatton, has ‘swung into action’, soliciting UKIP support in Boston while Mr
Farage was indulging in his ritual summer fishing holiday.

“But the UKIP leader wants to spend more time allocating the prime Boston seat, dislikes
having his hand forced, and has been cold-shouldering Mr Hamilton, whom he
regards as an unreliable ally with a fondness for the sound of his own voice.”

***

It wasn't just the heavyweights that ran with the story, either.
Gaby Hinsliff, Grazia magazine’s “political editor at large” has a name check
for our MP as well.

***

And from as far afield as South Somercotes, a critic put pen
to her local paper to declare that “Even as a Conservative voter I am
appalled at thecrass insensitivity with which Mark
Simmonds announced his resignation.

“He bewails the fact that he cannot manage on £120,000 a
year, plus a £25,000 a year salary for his wife and the proceeds of £500,000 he
made on the sale of his London home – for which the taxpayer footed the bill
and he pocketed the profit. You don’t have to be a fan of “The Ragged Trousered
Philanthropist” to see how thoughtless this is in an
area where most work for the minimum wage.

“If that sort of income puts folk off becoming MPs, as Mr
Simmonds states, then we are clearly in danger of having only the aristocracy
back in Parliament albeit this time in the House of Commons instead of in the
House of Lords!”

***

Conspicuous by their absence so far are any reports of how Mr Simmonds is
likely to earn a crust once his parliamentary largesse disappears.

We all remember how he picked up £50,000 a year for ten
hours’ “work” a month from a health company – he was shadow minister for health
between 2007 and 2010 – and we are sure he won’t have taken a leap into the
dark by quitting without the safety net of earning at least as much again as his parliamentary pittance.

His most recent work as Minister for Africa will have
brought him into contact with all sorts of interesting people, and we await
news of his future plans with interest.

***

Do we have a clue about how long ago Mark Simmonds decided not
to stand again for Boston?

A reader e-mails to say “I've looked at the
electoral register for Swineshead, and despite Swineshead Abbey being their
only (or main?) residence, the Simmonds appear not to be registered this year,
which makes me wonder where they are able to vote.”

A colleague checked this as far as was possible, and told us
that 192.com, which links names to addresses using information from the electoral
register did in fact list the Simmonds family at the £900,000 mansion.

But there is no clue as to how old that information is, so
things could well have altered.

If not on the register, of course, it is impossible to vote
– but then if you are not standing, this scarcely matters.

***

Interestingly, a letter from the Louth neck of the woods underlines
what we said last week about candidate selection and the golden ticket that some Lincolnshire
constituencies like Boston represent for the Machiavellis – sorry, planners – at
Conservative Central Office.

Victoria Atkins (pictured here with another Tory hopeful) is the newly appointed candidate for
Louth and Horncastle, currently held by “Father of the House” Sir Peter
Tapsell, who is calling it a day at the next election and who had a majority of
13,871 in 2010.

Ms Atkins is a high flying criminal prosecutor, and already
well-connected in Conservative circles, serving as deputy chairman of the
Conservative Policy Forum’s Justice and Home Affairs Group.

She is described as having “an unusual amount of open primary
experience from Tonbridge and Malling, Mid Worcestershire and North East Hampshire
– and also stood for Gloucestershire Police and Crime Commissioner in 2012.

Whilst she says that she and her husband Paul, the managing director
of a British food company “cannot wait to find our new home in Louth and
Horncastle” her ties are clearly with London, and she also declares that “we
like to spend what little spare time we have going to concerts, travelling, horse-riding
and running around after our son, Monty.”

As we said last week, the candidate list that local
Conservative activists parties have to choose from is drawn up by head office,
and it seems fairly obvious to us that the soon-to-be-new MP has most probably
been been picked for her value to the party as a PR asset now, and a high flyer
of the future – and less to do with the
constituency and its needs in the present.

It will be interesting to see what happens here in Boston – as
there has already been one cry of “foul” over the Louth-Horncastle selection.

The writer of a letter to a local paper says he was unable
to register for the historic open primary election to select Sir Peter Tapsell’s
successor. He says he found that he was unable to register to vote, received no
response to ’phone calls, nor could he register via the Conservative
Association’s website

“It would appear … that the Louth and Horncastle
Conservative Association had deliberately delayed publicising the election in
order to restrict the public attendance.

“Was that because the deal had already been done? Had
Conservative Central Office instructed the local organisation to select a
female in order to support their claim to welcome women MPs?”

We wonder what is going through the “minds” of our local
Tory hierarchy as the ladies dust off their little black dress for the Boston
selection process, and the men shake the mothballs from the turn-ups of their
cavalry twills, seek out that natty yellow cravat with the blue fox heads on
it, and pop their ageing tub of yellow brilliantine into the microwave to
soften it.

The response of Tory supporters in Boston when County Hall
snaps its fingers and tells them to jump is to ask “how high.”

When Conservative Central Office does the same, the response
will surely be “how much higher?”

Can we expect them to do their best for Boston, or do as they're told?

Why ask?

In fact when we looked at the Boston and Skegness Conservative webpage last night, there was still no mention of Mark Simmonds' resignation, nor of any timetable to find a replacement.
And the MP's own website was equally silent.

***

A couple of weeks ago we mentioned the TaxPayers’ Alliance
annual Town Hall Rich List – which detailed staff earning more than
£100,000 a year.

There were two in Worst Street – Chief Executive Richard
Harbord and his deputy and Strategic Director Phil Drury.

In overall terms, Boston always comes low on the list of
councils when such scrutiny is carried out – but as we have said before, in the
case of Mr Harbord, he is paid under a deal frowned upon by the Communities and
Local Government Department through his own private company … which confers
some considerable tax advantages.

This has not escaped the TPA this time around, though.

The report’s author, TaxPayers' Alliance Campaign Manager,
Andy Silvester, told Boston Eye: “This
is a deeply concerning arrangement, and taxpayers in Boston will want to know
why this strange situation is allowed to continue. This preferential tax
arrangement is bound to raise eyebrows.”

***

The webcasting of the
Quadrant application planning committee meeting was a first for Boston Borough
Council – but changes to the law mean that it will hopefully not be the last
time we see our councillors starring on the computer screen.

New regulations
announced by the Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles give journalists
and the public new rights to report on local council meetings and
allows them to film, digitally report, and tweet from all public meetings of
local government bodies.

Pickles says that the new regulations – which apply only in
England – are intended to end the resistance in some authorities to greater
openness and the use of new technology to report on and film or
broadcast council meetings.

Some councils have called police to arrest people who tried
to report, tweet or film their meetings, or claimed the power to ban reporting
on "health and safety" grounds or because of the danger that it would
bring "reputational risks".

The new rules apply to all public meetings, including town
and parish councils and fire and rescue authorities.

Eric Pickles said: “Local democracy needs local journalists and
bloggers to report and scrutinise the work of their council, and
increasingly, people read their news via digital media.

"The new ‘right to report’ goes hand in hand with our
work to stop unfair state competition from municipal newspapers – together
defending the independent free press.

"There is now no excuse for any council not
to allow these new rights.

Not for the first time, it may well be the case that Boston
Borough Council’s leadership needs to smarten up its act.

At the end of 2013 – although allowing filming of meetings
was not mandatory – councillors recommended a change of protocol on the grounds
of transparency and openness … nay, nay, titter ye not, as Frankie
Howerd used to say.

However, along with this grudging nod to democracy
the recommendations gave committee
chairmen discretion to allow filming or not and ordered that consent
to film had to be sought in writing, or
by email, to the democratic services manager no later than five
working days before the day of the meeting.

The recommendation also said that filming will only be
permitted from cameras on tripods set up in advance of the meeting in a
location designated by the chairman, and prohibited the use of iPads,
notebooks, tablets or smart phones to record the meeting either visually or by
audio.

It sounds as though Eric Pickles has driven a coach and horses through
the local handcuffs on democracy such as those agreed by the council –
and we look forward to seeing changes made so that they can be implemented –
and to hearing the news publicly announced.

***

Which brings us back to the TaxPayers Alliance …

In a report at the end of 2013 – around the same time that Boston
Borough Council was deliberating allowing cameras into meetings – a report from
the TPA named the council as one of twelve which only allowed the
public to record at meetings with approval of either the chairman or the Mayor.

At the time, Andrew Allison, National Grassroots Coordinator of the
TaxPayers’ Alliance noted: “Allowing residents the opportunity to see democracy in
action is an important part of the democratic process. Not all residents will
be able to attend in person, and councils can get around this simply by
allowing residents to film meetings themselves. They can also opt for low cost
systems to broadcast meetings on their websites. It is time for councils to move
into the 21st Century and embrace technology, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist the moment councillors enter a meeting".

***

It’s not the first time that the TPA has had harsh words for
the council.

In November 2012 it nominated Councillor Bedford as its Pinhead
of the Month.

“Presiding over both the council and the Conservative
group on the authority, he has just led his colleagues in support of a 20 per
cent increase in councillors’ special responsibility allowances (SRA) over the
next two years.,” said the nomination.

“He has justified the move on the basis that councillors
holding leading positions at other nearby authorities are taking far more in
allowances than is currently the case at Boston. The changes will see Councillor
Bedford’s own SRA increase from less than £6,500 per year to nearly £8,000.

Jonathan Isaby, Political Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance,
commented:

“Peter Bedford has badly let down those he represents by
backing the hike in his allowances at a time when families are feeling the
pinch and having to make savings.
“When was the last time you heard someone
complain that their local authority would perform so much better if only the
councillors were given a big rise in their allowances?

“When the council is freezing staff pay and making difficult
decisions about how to spend scarce resources, the last thing councillors
should be doing is increasing the amount they are taking for themselves.

“It ought to be a matter of pride for Councillor Bedford
that he and his colleagues are currently delivering better value for money than
their counterparts elsewhere by taking less in these allowances. Instead, they
have chosen to vote themselves this eye-watering rise. How can Councillor Bedford
now retain the moral authority to oversee necessary savings elsewhere in the
budget?”

All of which moves us neatly on to our next item.

***

It’s always good to get feedback from readers … particularly
when they want to learn more about the way that our local politics tick – or in
the case of the broken timepiece that represents the current leadership in
Worst Street – grate and grind along
without ever getting the time right.

And it was an e-mail from reader Annette that reminded us of
much that has been forgotten over the years, and which needs to be remembered
in the run-up to the next elections in May 2015.

“I enjoy reading your blog but would like to ask a question,”
wrote Annette. “How can Peter Bedford be council leader when he lost his seat in last
year's elections?

“I am also confused as to why nothing is ever heard about
the UKIP councillors elected last year.

“Are they actually out in the community fulfilling their
responsibilities, or just sitting back enjoying their success on protest votes
without having to lift a finger?”

Good questions both.

The answer to the first is that for many years, Councillor
Bedford wore two political hats – at Lincolnshire County Council as well as
Boston Borough Council.

At County Hall, Boston is represented by seven of the 77
councillors, and locally we have 32, which will be reduced to 30 next year.

Because of the way that elections fall, voting for seats on
the county overlap with the elections at borough level.

So last year, Councillor Bedford and a number of his Tory
cronies who between then had swamped the county political scene, got the old
heave-ho with just one seat remaining Conservative, one becoming sort of Independent
, and the remaining five falling to UKIP.

Bedford became leader of Boston Borough Council after the
local elections in May 2011, via a rather arcane route which we will
explain later.

UKIP – having won sixteen of the 25 seats that the ruling Conservatives
lost at County Hall – then surprised no-one by proving how incapable they were
when it came to conducting politics in the real world.

The election saw the Conservative Party lose overall control
of the council, having previously enjoyed a sizeable majority, and found
themselves six seats short of an overall majority.

UKIP was the biggest party, with 16 seats, but lost six of
its councillors to defections caused by internal wrangling shortly after the
election

The upshot was that the Conservatives agreed on a coalition
with the Liberal Democrats and several “Independent” members – who themselves
defected from their own “party” to do so – to continue running the council.

If all that isn’t confusing enough, because of the collapse
of UKIP unity, Labour – with 12 seats – now forms the official opposition.

At a local level, two people elected as UKIP members in the
county elections were also voted in at by-elections in Boston Borough Council,
and went through exactly the same political gymnastics as we had seen in
Lincoln.

It’s hard to keep track between county and local level, but
having started out under the UKIP banner, they briefly flirted with the title “UKIP
Lincolnshire” then “Independence from Europe” before throwing in their lot with
the Lincolnshire Independents group … which is so independent that it has a
leader, which makes no sense to us at all – especially as it has nothing to do with UKIP or its policies

So to answer the original question about UKIP at both county
and borough levels – “are they actually out in the community fulfilling their
responsibilities, or just sitting back enjoying their success on protest votes
without having to lift a finger?” – in our opinion, the reply would be “up to a
point.”

They attend almost all lessons – four have 100% attendance
records and one has 90%, but in terms of hearing from them or seeing anything
by way of action, the answer is “not really.”

***

The first half of the first question – “how can Peter
Bedford be council leader?” – is probably asked somewhere in Boston on an
almost daily basis and for the reason
why we must again go back to the 2011 election.

Then, the Conservative leader was Councillor Raymond
Singleton-McGuire and – such was the impact that Bedford made at meetings in
the run up to the election, one candidate needed to ask who he
was – even though he had 20 years’ “service” under his belt at the time.

He was then the Chairman of Lincolnshire County Council – a
largely ceremonial job occupied by rota on the basis of time served – as
Boston’s mayors are appointed these days after a brief flirtation with electing
the post-holder.

Just days after the shock victory, Councillor
Singleton-McGuire stepped aside and handed the reins to Councillor Bedford,
becoming his joint deputy with Councillor Michael Brookes.

At the time, we asked the not unreasonable question “did
he fall or was he pushed?” and were told that this was unfair, and we
had misinterpreted a sacrifice for the good of Boston as some sort of political
coup d'état.

With almost indecent haste, Councillor Bedford turned up on
the wireless to tell the enthralled listeners with his customary loquacity: “It
was felt that it needed a steady pair of hands, should we say, at the helm, and
to allow Raymond to specialise in looking into the finances, because as you are
well aware, with the cuts that are upon us from central government and we
accept those, the fact that it has to happen, but we do need a specialist in
the area, and on the Conservative group, he’s the only person that we have
who’s a specialist in that area.

“It would be absolutely impossible to do both jobs.

“Everybody is happy with what’s gone on. It was done
amicably over the weekend; we had a group meeting yesterday teatime to agree
and rubber stamp the outcomes.”

As we noted at the time, it was Harold Wilson who famously
ran a so-called “kitchen cabinet.”

Now it seemed Boston had an equivalent – the Tory
tearoom!

Nonetheless, we pursued the matter, and eventually,
Councillor Singleton-McGuire declared: “I reflected on the situation at Boston
Borough Council and its issues, especially the finances. In light of this, I
set aside my personal gratification and tried to think what would be best for
Boston. My intentions were to engage Peter Bedford as a second deputy similar
to that at Lincolnshire County Council and South Holland District Council and
to use his vast experience and ambassador qualities.

“Peter agreed to take over the leadership in the interim
period, therefore releasing my time to concentrate on the finance
portfolio.”

So, an “interim” post that is still being clung to more
than three years later and is likely to remain so until the election – and long
after Councillor Singleton-McGuire is said to have sorted all the borough’s
financial woes.

Hmmm.

***

Now to more on the Quadrant debate, which was held over from
last week because of pressures on space.

A writer says:

“I wonder if the reasoning behind the Boston United move
really was just because Old Yorkie has gone way past its best.

"In fairness, it has been crumbling for a very long time –
but can that really have been the only catalyst for this extraordinarily large
project?

“I would accept that the government’s new initiative regarding house building, has played a fairly
major part in the motivation, and in a run down, and dare I say it, neglected
town such as Boston, initiatives like this are more than welcome.

"In fact in Boston`s case, it is vital, and needed a.s,a.p, because the way things look,
it’s not great.

“No matter the reasons, isn't it great to see local
developers like Chestnut and others putting forward building proposals and
developments in and around Boston?

“Well it is ... and isn't it clever that Chestnut’s Quadrant name cleverly denotes that
there are three others?

“But the recent planning meeting was a clear demonstration
of just how bad things have been for Boston.

“Planners are strung along, manipulated and influenced, and
as for the motley collection of decision makers – they do have a lot to answer
for.

“What is questionable is how long this particular ‘stringing
along’ has been going on, and the remarkable length of time, it seems, that
this was being privately discussed!

“All our councillors actually knew a great deal about this,
and it seems had been directed to the decision ages ago.

“Let`s get some clarity here, does the Payer or the Piper
call the tune...because I think in Boston it is different from the norm.

“Is it really ok, to have potential bounty hunters wandering
around our parishes checking out the viability of locations, upon which they
might just happen to fancy putting a large or smallish development, and, it
seems, being guided … nay advised … by our council?

“Would it not be
equitable to give the local parish council notification, and information
regarding such a project proposal?

"After all, it is their patch, but they seemed as shocked by
the project as we were, and it seems not to have been the case with the Awful
Quadrant Proposal that was – surprise, surprise – passed by the planning
committee.

“So what is going on inside the heads of our top end senior
officers in the Municipal Buildings?

“Have the delusions of grandeur and importance become so
entrenched that they no longer respect, consider, or worry about the ordinary rate
paying punter?

“Isn't it time we began to hold them to account; isn't it
time that our councillors insisted on a regular ‘information event’ free from
clutter and butter.

“We need to let our officers see the faces of the ratepayer,
and force them to provide some proper reasons for projects and actions or lack
of them.

“Our officers are paid by us, and councillors are elected by
us and their calling is to act on our behalf.

"Believe it or not, they are therefore responsible to us –
not, definitely not, the other way round, as some of them seem to believe.

“So here is a question for our development officers.

“Exactly how much assistance was provided, by our officers and
staff for this contractor?

“We are told that the plot for the football stadium has been
donated through some trust or charitable society....that's all right then, but
whose land is it that the rest of the development has been earmarked for?

“Will we, or Boston United, actually and automatically own
it at any time in the future?

“Will there be a cost?

“If all of that is actually right, is it really then the job
of a highly paid council officer to strive to protect the confidentiality of
those prospectors who I am sure will get a reasonable payback, maybe ?

“Even then, as contractors openly trample and dig all over a
particular piece of land, checking out the potential of a development
opportunity, we Wybertonians are kept in the dark, and/or sworn to secrecy?

“Our enquiry some time back to the borough, asked what a
collection of workers with diggers and things were doing in a particular field
in Wyberton?

“I believe at the first time of asking, no detail was
available, and were told that the presence and purpose of the activity was
unknown.

“Sometime later we were told that the council thought that
they were just contractors, checking out sites that might be suitable for
building on ... only to later discover the true scale of the forthcoming
proposal.

“It seems a bit of an understatement to say that they are
just going round looking for possible, or potential sites, and fast forward
some time later and the work was still going on, in different locations, but on
the same large site.

“Lo and behold, suddenly, not only have we been, it seems,
falsely informed, we were then faced with being forced into a decision within
weeks of this enquiry when a planning application was presented.

“So, a group were hastily gathered and scrambled around,
trying to play catch up, attempting to find documents, checking the details,
and responding, followed by creating a plan of action, in an attempt to thwart
the detailed application and content of the developer’s proposal.

“Not only, I believe, have our officers gone way beyond what
might be thought of as accommodating, they have bent, further than whatever
might be thought of as simply providing advice and guidance beyond the norm.

“Such is the desperation of the council in this town for any
scrap of good news even if it is contrived and manipulated to gain an
advantage.”

***

Things are looking up after last week’s gloomy warning for
gardeners when we reported that Boston Borough Council had announced that it
couldn't take any brown bin payments until September 8th “due to insufficient
availability of stock.” Soon afterwards, we heard from George Bernard, the
borough’s Head of Operations, who e-mailed to say: “Happily we received our
delivery of new brown garden waste bins earlier than we were led to expect, so
are now back in business for those wanting to join the scheme or buy further
ones!”

The brown bin service is something that we can
wholeheartedly recommend from personal experience and remains very good value –
so long as the promise that one can be obtained for a one-off charge and no
on-going costs is maintained.

***

Finally, more good news this week is that we are not alone
in our concerns about the way that local government works in Lincolnshire.

A new website has been launched as “a clarion call to all
those people in Lincolnshire that believe British standards should be the
highest in the world and their maintenance should be fought for.”

The authors urge readers to “join us now in this new -
bloodless and peaceful - Battle of Britain, where we have an opportunity to put
the 'Great' back into Britain again.

“With your help, we can give publicity to the wrong-doers,
shine a light on to shady deals, and rip open those little brown envelopes
under the very eyes of the people that are being deceived.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About the author

is written and edited by retired Lincolnshire born writer and broadcaster Malcolm Swire, who was brought up in London, where he began his career in journalism.
In the 1960s he joined the Boston Standard before returning to London to write for the UK’s national news agency, the Press Association – then based in Fleet Street.
He returned to Lincolnshire –where his family history goes back more than a century – in various public relations roles, before becoming a founder member of BBC Radio Lincolnshire,where he created the station's Go for Gold appeal,which raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for local charities.
Over the years, he read the news, presented programmes and retired from the BBC as the station's Programme Organiser and Deputy Managing Editor.
He started the Boston Eye blog in February 2007 and has vowed to continue until Boston Borough Council's leadership is all that it should be!
He has dug in for a long wait!